Chan Kent v Micarez

7/25/2019 Chan Kent v Micarez

1/12

G.R. No. 185758.

March 9, 2011.*

LINDA M. CHAN KENT, represented by ROSITA

MANALANG, petitioner, vs. DIONESIO C. MICAREZ,

SPOUSES ALVARO E. MICAREZ & PAZ MICAREZ, and

THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS, DAVAO DEL NORTE,

respondents.

Civil Procedure Pre-Trial Mediation Proceedings A.M. No.

01-10-5-SC-PHILJA regards mediation as part of pre-trial where

parties are encouraged to personally attend the proceedings.A.M.

No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA regards mediation as part of pre-trial

where parties are encouraged to personally attend the

proceedings. The personal non-appearance, however, of a party

may be excused only when the representative, who appears in his

behalf, has been duly authorized to enter into possible amicable

settlement or to submit to alternative modes of dispute resolution.

Courts Pleadings and Practice Unless the conduct of the

party is so negligent, irresponsible, contumacious, or dilatory asfor non-appearance to provide substantial grounds for dismissal,

the courts should consider lesser sanctions which would still

achieve the desired end.Unless the conduct of the party is so

negligent, irresponsible, contumacious, or dilatory as for non-

appearance to provide substantial grounds for dismissal, the

courts should consider lesser sanctions which would still achieve

the desired end. The Court has written inconsiderate dismissals,

even if without prejudice, do not constitute a panacea nor a

solution to the congestion of court dockets, while they lend a

deceptive aura of efficiency to records of the individual judges,

they merely postpone the ultimate reckoning between the parties.

Same Procedural Rules and Technicalities The Court should

afford party-litigants the amplest opportunity to enable them to

have their cases justly determined, free from constraints of

technicalities.The Court should afford party-litigants the

amplest opportunity to enable them to have their cases justly

determined, free from constraints of technicalities. Technicalities

should take a backseat
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015290934a4c03670fc7003600fb002c009e/p/ARK506/?username=Jeric#ftn1http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015290934a4c03670fc7003600fb002c009e/p/ARK506/?username=Jeric#ftn1


2/12

_______________

*SECOND DIVISION.

177

VOL. 645, MARCH 9, 2011 177

Chan Kent vs. Micarez

against substantive rights and should give way to the realities of

the situation. Besides, the petitioner has manifested her interest

to pursue the case through the present petition. At any rate, it

has not been shown that a remand of the case for trial would

cause undue prejudice to respondents.

Same Same The better and more prudent course of action ina judicial proceeding is to hear both sides and decide the case on

the merits instead of disposing the case by technicalities.The

better and more prudent course of action in a judicial proceeding

is to hear both sides and decide the case on the merits instead of

disposing the case by technicalities. What should guide judicial

action is the principle that a party-litigant is to be given the

fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his complaint or

defense rather than for him to lose life, liberty or property on

technicalities.

PETITION for review on certiorari of an order of the

Regional Trial Court of Panabo City, Br. 34.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Benjamin T. Etulle for petitioner.

Richard Miguel for respondents.

MENDOZA,J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to

reverse and set aside the July 17, 2008 Order1 of the

Regional Trial Court of Panabo City, Branch 34 (RTC),

dismissing the complaint for recovery of property filed by

petitioner Linda M. Chan Kent (petitioner), docketed as

Civil Case No. 13-2007, and its November 21, 2008, Order2

denying her motion for reconsideration.

_______________

1Rollo, p. 34. Penned by Judge Rowena Apao-Adlawan.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015290934a4c03670fc7003600fb002c009e/p/ARK506/?username=Jeric#body_ftn2http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015290934a4c03670fc7003600fb002c009e/p/ARK506/?username=Jeric#body_ftn1


3/12

2Id., at pp. 38-39.

178

178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


The Facts

This petition draws its origin from a complaint for

recovery of real property and annulment of title filed by

petitioner, through her younger sister and authorized

representative, Rosita Micarez-Manalang (Manalang),

before the RTC. Petitioner is of Filipino descent who

became a naturalized American citizen after marrying an

American national in 1981. She is now a permanent

resident of the United States of America (USA).

In her complaint, petitioner claimed that the residentiallot in Panabo City, which she purchased in 1982, was

clandestinely and fraudulently conveyed and transferred

by her parents, respondent spouses Alvaro and Paz

Micarez (Spouses Micarez), in favor of her youngest

brother, respondent Dionesio Micarez (Dionesio), to her

prejudice and detriment. She alleged that sometime in

1982, she asked her parents to look for a residential lot

somewhere in Poblacion Panabo where the Spouses

Micarez would build their new home. Aware that there

would be difficulty in registering a real property in her

name, she being married to an American citizen, she

arranged to pay for the purchase price of the residential lot

and register it, in the meantime, in the names of Spouses

Micarez under an implied trust. The title thereto shall be

transferred in her name in due time.

Thus, on October 20, 1982, a deed of absolute sale was

executed between Spouses Micarez and the owner, Abundio

Panganiban, for the 328 square meter residential lot

covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT)No. T-25833.Petitioner sent the money which was used for the payment

of the lot. TCT No. T-25833 was cancelled upon the

registration of the deed of sale before the Registry of Deeds

of Davao del Norte. In lieu thereof, TCT No. T-38635 was

issued in the names of Spouses Micarez on January 31,

1983.

Sometime in 2005, she learned from Manalang that

Spouses Micarez sold the subject lot to Dionesio on

November
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015290934a4c03670fc7003600fb002c009e/p/ARK506/?username=Jeric#body_ftn3


4/12

179

VOL. 645, MARCH 9, 2011 179


22, 2001 and that consequently, TCT T-172286 was issued

in her brothers name on January 21, 2002.At the end, petitioner prayed that she be declared as the

true and real owner of the subject lot that TCT No. T-

172286 be cancelled and that a new one be issued in her

name.3

Considering that all the respondents are now also

permanent residents of the USA, summons was served

upon them by publication per RTC Order4 dated May 17,

2007. Meanwhile, the respondents executed two special

powers of attorney5 both dated August 3, 2007 before the

Consulate General of the Philippines in Los Angeles,

California, U.S.A., authorizing their counsel, Atty. Richard

C. Miguel (Atty. Miguel), to file their answer in Civil Case

No. 13-2007 and to represent them during the pre-trial

conference and all subsequent hearings with power to enter

into a compromise agreement. By virtue thereof, Atty.

Miguel timely filed his principals answer denying the

material allegations in the complaint.

After the parties had filed their respective pre-trial

briefs, and the issues in the case had been joined, the RTCexplored the possibility of an amicable settlement among

the parties by ordering the referral of the case to the

Philippine Mediation Center (PMC). On March 1, 2008,

Mediator Esmeraldo O. Padao, Sr. (Padao) issued a

Mediators Report6and returned Civil Case No. 13-2007 to

the RTC allegedly due to the non-appearance of the

respondents on the scheduled conferences before him.

Acting on said Report, the RTC issued an order on May 29,

2009 allowing petitioner to present her evidence ex parte.7

_______________

3Id., at pp. 41-47.

4Id., at p. 48.

5Id., at pp. 59-60.

6Id., at p. 50.

7Id., at p. 26.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015290934a4c03670fc7003600fb002c009e/p/ARK506/?username=Jeric#body_ftn8http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015290934a4c03670fc7003600fb002c009e/p/ARK506/?username=Jeric#body_ftn7http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015290934a4c03670fc7003600fb002c009e/p/ARK506/?username=Jeric#body_ftn6http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015290934a4c03670fc7003600fb002c009e/p/ARK506/?username=Jeric#body_ftn5http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015290934a4c03670fc7003600fb002c009e/p/ARK506/?username=Jeric#body_ftn4


5/12

180



Later, Padao clarified, through a Manifestation,8dated

July 15, 2008, that it was petitioner, represented by Atty.Benjamin Utulle (Atty. Utulle), who did not attend the

mediation proceedings set on March 1, 2008, and not Atty.

Miguel, counsel for the respondents and their authorized

representative. Padao explained that Atty. Miguel

inadvertently affixed his signature for attendance purposes

on the column provided for the plaintiffs counsel in the

mediators report. In light of this development, the RTC

issued the assailed Order9 dated July 17, 2008 dismissing

Civil Case No. 13-2007. The pertinent portion of said order

reads:

Being so, the Order dated May 29, 2008 is hereby corrected.

For plaintiffs and her counsels failure to appear during the

mediation proceeding, this instant case is hereby ordered

DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Petitioner, through her counsel, filed a motion for

reconsideration10 to set aside the order of dismissal,

invoking the relaxation of the rule on non-appearance in

the mediation proceedings in the interest of justice and

equity. Petitioner urged the trial court not to dismiss the

case based merely on technicalities contending that

litigations should as much as possible be decided on the

merits. Resolving the motion in its second assailed Order11

dated November 21, 2008, the RTC ruled that it was not

proper for the petitioner to invoke liberality inasmuch as

the dismissal of the civil action was due to her own fault.

The dispositive portion of said order reads:

WHEREFORE, there being no cogent reason to depart from

our earlier Order, this instant motion for reconsideration is

hereby ordered DENIED.

_______________

8 Id., at p. 49.

9 Id., at p. 34.


6/12

10Id., at pp. 35-37.

11Id., at p. 3.

181

VOL. 645, MARCH 9, 2011 181


SO ORDERED.12

The denial prompted the petitioner to file this petition

directly with this Court claiming that the dismissal of the

case was not in accordance with applicable law and

jurisprudence.

Issues

1.

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT A

QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN DISMISSING THE CASESIMPLY ON THE REASON THAT PLAINTIFF FAILED TO

APPEAR DURING THE MEDIATION PROCEEDING,

ALTHOUGH PRESENT FOR TWO (2) TIMES.

2.IS THE EXCUSABLE AND EXPLAINED FAILURE TO

ATTEND THE MEDIATION PROCEEDING FOR TWO (2)

TIMES OR SETTINGS, OUT OF THE FOUR (4)

SCHEDULED SETTINGS, BY THE PLAINTIFF A GROUND

TO DISMISS THE CASE UNDER THE SUPREME COURTS

ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 20-2002?

The pivotal issue in this case is whether the RTC erred

in dismissing Civil Case No. 13-2007 due to the failure of

petitioners duly authorized representative, Manalang, and

her counsel to attend the mediation proceedings under the

provisions of A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA and 1997 Rules

on Civil Procedure.

Petitioner claims that the dismissal of the case was

unjust because her representative, Manalang, and her

counsel, Atty. Etulle, did not deliberately snub themediation proceedings. In fact, Manalang and Atty. Etulle

twice attended the mediation conferences on January 19,

2008 and on February 9, 2008. On both occasions,

Manalang was present but was not made to sign the

attendance sheet and was merely at the lobby waiting to be

called by Atty. Etulle upon arrival of Atty.

_______________


7/12

12Id., at p. 14.

182



Miguel. Manalang and Atty. Etulle only left PMC at 11:00

oclock in the morning when Atty. Miguel had not yet

arrived.13

Petitioner, however, admits that her representative and

counsel indeed failed to attend the last scheduled

conference on March 1, 2008, when they had to attend

some urgent matters caused by the sudden increase in

prices of commodities.14

In the interest of justice, the Court grants the petition.

A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA dated October 16, 2001,otherwise known as the Second Revised Guidelines for the

Implementation of Mediation Proceedings, was issued

pursuant to par. (5), Section 5, Article VII of the 1987

Constitution mandating this Court to promulgate rules

providing for a simplified and inexpensive procedure for

the speedy disposition of cases. Also, Section 2(a), Rule 18

of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, requires

the courts to consider the possibility of an amicable

settlement or of submission to alternative modes of

resolution for the early settlement of disputes so as to put

an end to litigations. The provisions of A.M. No. 01-10-5-

SC-PHILJA pertinent to the case at bench are as follows:

9.Personal appearance/Proper authorizations

Individual parties are encouraged to personally appear for

mediation. In the event they cannot attend, their representatives

must be fully authorized to appear, negotiate and enter into a

compromise by a Special Power of Attorney. A corporation shall,

by board resolution, fully authorize its representative to appear,negotiate and enter into a compromise agreement.

12.Sanctions

Since mediation is part of Pre-Trial, the trial court shall

impose the appropriate sanction including but not limited to

censure, reprimand, contempt and such other sanctions as are

provided under

_______________


8/12

13Id., at p. 28.

14Id., at p. 29.

183

VOL. 645, MARCH 9, 2011 183


the Rules of Court for failure to appear for pre-trial, in case any or

both of the parties absent himself/themselves, or for abusive

conduct during mediation proceedings. [Underscoring supplied]

To reiterate, A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA regards

mediation as part of pre-trial where parties are encouraged

to personally attend the proceedings. The personal non-

appearance, however, of a party may be excused only when

the representative, who appears in his behalf, has been

duly authorized to enter into possible amicable settlementor to submit to alternative modes of dispute resolution. To

ensure the attendance of the parties, A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-

PHILJA specifically enumerates the sanctions that the

court can impose upon a party who fails to appear in the

proceedings which includes censure, reprimand, contempt,

and even dismissal of the action in relation to Section 5,

Rule 18 of the Rules of Court.15The respective lawyers of

the parties may attend the proceedings and, if they do so,

they are enjoined to cooperate with the mediator for thesuccessful amicable settlement of disputes16 so as to

effectively reduce docket congestion.

Although the RTC has legal basis to order the dismissal

of Civil Case No. 13-2007, the Court finds this sanction too

severe to be imposed on the petitioner where the records of

the case is devoid of evidence of willful or flagrant

disregard of the rules on mediation proceedings. There is

no clear demonstration that the absence of petitioners

representative during mediation proceedings on March 1,

2008 was intended to perpetuate delay in the litigation ofthe case. Neither is it indicative of lack of interest on the

part of petitioner to enter into a possible amicable

settlement of the case.

_______________

15 Rule 18, Sec. 5. Effect of failure to appear.The failure of the

plaintiff to appear when so required pursuant to the next preceding

section shall be cause for dismissal of the action. The dismissal shall be
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015290934a4c03670fc7003600fb002c009e/p/ARK506/?username=Jeric#body_ftn16http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015290934a4c03670fc7003600fb002c009e/p/ARK506/?username=Jeric#body_ftn15http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015290934a4c03670fc7003600fb002c009e/p/ARK506/?username=Jeric#body_ftn14


9/12

with prejudice, unless otherwise ordered by the court.xxxxx.

16Rule 5, A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA.

184



The Court notes that Manalang was not entirely at fault

for the cancellation and resettings of the conferences. Let it

be underscored that respondents representative and

counsel, Atty. Miguel, came late during the January 19 and

February 9, 2008 conferences which resulted in their

cancellation and the final resetting of the mediation

proceedings to March 1, 2008. Considering the

circumstances, it would be most unfair to penalize

petitioner for the neglect of her lawyer.Assuming arguendo that the trial court correctly

construed the absence of Manalang on March 1, 2008 as a

deliberate refusal to comply with its Order or to be dilatory,

it cannot be said that the court was powerless and virtually

without recourse. Indeed, there are other available

remedies to the court a quo under A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-

PHILJA, apart from immediately ordering the dismissal of

the case. If Manalangs absence upset the intention of the

court a quoto promptly dispose the case, a mere censure or

reprimand would have been sufficient for petitioners

representative and her counsel so as to be informed of the

courts intolerance of tardiness and laxity in the

observation of its order. By failing to do so and refusing to

resuscitate the case, the RTC impetuously deprived

petitioner of the opportunity to recover the land which she

allegedly paid for.

Unless the conduct of the party is so negligent,

irresponsible, contumacious, or dilatory as for non-

appearance to provide substantial grounds for dismissal,the courts should consider lesser sanctions which would

still achieve the desired end. The Court has written

inconsiderate dismissals, even if without prejudice, do not

constitute a panacea nor a solution to the congestion of

court dockets, while they lend a deceptive aura of efficiency

to records of the individual judges, they merely postpone

the ultimate reckoning between the parties. In the absence

of clear lack of merit or intention to delay,


10/12

185

VOL. 645, MARCH 9, 2011 185


justice is better served by a brief continuance, trial on the

merits, and final disposition of the cases before the court.17

It bears emphasis that the subject matter of the

complaint is a valuable parcel of land measuring 328

square meters and that petitioner had allegedly spent a lot

of money not only for the payment of the docket and other

filing fees but also for the extra-territorial service of the

summons to the respondents who are now permanent

residents of the U.S.A. Certainly, petitioner stands to lose

heavily on account of technicality. Even if the dismissal is

without prejudice, the refiling of the case would still be

injurious to petitioner because she would have to pay again

all the litigation expenses which she previously paid for.

The Court should afford party-litigants the amplest

opportunity to enable them to have their cases justly

determined, free from constraints of technicalities.18

Technicalities should take a backseat against substantive

rights and should give way to the realities of the situation.

Besides, the petitioner has manifested her interest to

pursue the case through the present petition. At any rate,

it has not been shown that a remand of the case for trialwould cause undue prejudice to respondents.

In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds it just and

proper that petitioner be allowed to present her cause of

action during trial on the merits to obviate jeopardizing

substantive justice. Verily, the better and more prudent

course of action in a judicial proceeding is to hear both

sides and decide the case on the merits instead of disposing

the case by technicalities. What should guide judicial action

is the principle that a party-litigant is to be given the

fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his complaint

or defense rather than for him

_______________

17Paguirigan v. Pilhino Sales Corporation, G.R. No. 169177, June 30,

2006, 494 SCRA 384, 391, citing Ruiz v. Judge Estenzo, 264 Phil. 396 186

SCRA 8 (1990).

18Leyba v. Rural Bank of Cabuyao, Inc., G.R. No. 172910, November


11/12

14, 2008, 571 SCRA 160, 163.

186



to lose life, liberty or property on technicalities.19The ends

of justice and fairness would best be served if the issues

involved in the case are threshed out in a full-blown trial.

Trial courts are reminded to exert efforts to resolve the

matters before them on the merits and to adjudge them

accordingly to the satisfaction of the parties, lest in

hastening the proceedings, they further delay the

resolution of the cases.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Civil Case

No. 13-2007 is hereby REINSTATED and REMANDED tothe Regional Trial Court of Panobo City, Branch 34 for

referral back to the Philippine Mediation Center for

possible amicable settlement or for other proceedings.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio (Chairperson), Velasco, Jr.,**Peralta andAbad,

JJ., concur.

Petition granted.

Note.It is an accepted tenet that rules of procedure

must be faithfully followed except only when, for

persuasive and weighting reasons, they may be relaxed to

relieve a litigant of an injustice commensurate with his

failure to comply with the prescribed procedure.

Concomitant to a liberal interpretation of the rules of

procedure, however, should be an effort on the part of the

party invoking liberality to adequately explain his failure

to abide by the rules. (Suarez vs. Villarama, Jr., 493 SCRA

74 [2006])

o0o

_______________

19Paredes v. Verano, G.R. No. 164375, October 12, 2006, 504 SCRA

278-279.

** Designated as additional member in lieu of Associate Justice

Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, per Special Order No. 933 dated January

Documents

Chan Kent v Micarez